Search

Background: Factors impeding delivery of adequate enteral nutrition (EN) to trauma patients include delayed EN initiation, frequent surgeries and procedures, and postoperative ileus. We employed 3 feeding strategies to optimize EN delivery: (1) early EN initiation, (2) preoperative no nil per os feeding protocol, and (3) a catch-up feeding protocol. This study compared nutrition adequacy and clinical outcomes before and after implementation of these feeding strategies., Methods: All trauma patients aged ≥18 years requiring mechanical ventilation for ≥7 days and receiving EN were included. Patients who sustained nonsurvivable injuries, received parenteral nutrition, or were readmitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) were excluded. EN data were collected until patients received an oral diet or were discharged from the ICU. The improvement was quantified by comparing nutrition adequacy and outcomes between April 2014-May 2015 (intervention) and May 2012-June 2013 (baseline)., Results: The intervention group (n = 118) received significantly more calories (94% vs 75%, P < .001) and protein (104% vs 74%, P < .001) than the baseline group (n = 121). The percentage of patients receiving EN within 24 and 48 hours of ICU admission increased from 41% to 70% and from 79% to 96% respectively after intervention (P < .001). Although there were fewer 28-ay ventilator-free days in the intervention group than in the baseline group (12 vs 16 days, P = .03), receipt of the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.89; P = .017) after adjusting sex and Injury Severity Score., Conclusions: Implementation of multitargeted feeding strategies resulted in a significant increase in nutrition adequacy and a significant reduction in pneumonia., (© 2017 American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition.)

Background: Early recognition of sepsis is challenging, especially in the surgical patient. Because of the non-specific nature of the initial signs and symptoms, delays in recognition are all too common. To improve the early identification of sepsis, screening tools have been developed, and several papers have described their results. This article reviews the available sepsis screening tools.Methods: A PubMed search was performed using the search terms "sepsis" and "shock," "electronic alert," "clinical decision support," and "early warning systems." The papers found were reviewed to determine their relevance to the topic of sepsis screening, and outcome data were extracted from appropriate papers.Results: Multiple sepsis screening tools were identified with differing performance characteristics. These tools are reviewed individually along with a summary of their sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values.Conclusions: Clearly, sepsis screening has the potential to improve patient outcomes by aiding clinicians in the early recognition of the condition, enabling early implementation of evidence-based therapies. However, significant challenges remain, including identifying an optimal screening tool. Continued research is needed into the development and integration of automated screening tools that will be effective in a variety of clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]